TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal affirms DEPB benefits for piston rings under 'Pig Iron Products' category</h1> The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to grant DEPB benefits to piston rings, classifying them under the generic description of ... Export - Pass book scheme - Words and Phrases Issues involved:Classification of exported piston rings under DEPB Schedule Group Code No. 61, Serial No. 78 as 'Pig Iron Products'.Analysis:The appeal filed by Revenue questioned whether piston rings exported by a company should be classified under the DEPB Schedule Group Code No. 61, Serial No. 78 as 'Pig Iron Products.' The Deputy Commissioner initially held that piston rings cannot be classified under the DEPB Schedule under either Group Code No. 61 Sl. No. 67 or Sl. No. 78. The Revenue argued that granting DEPB benefits to all automobile parts would render specific entries redundant. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the DEPB benefit for piston rings, stating that the practice at certain ports cannot dictate classification, and that piston rings are identifiable automobile engine parts distinct from automotive castings or pig iron products. The Revenue contended that since no specific rate exists for piston rings in the DEPB Schedule, they should not be classified as pig iron products.On the other hand, the Respondents argued that the piston rings are manufactured from pig iron, confirmed by a chemical test. They contended that since there is no specific rate for piston rings made of pig iron in the DEPB Schedule, they should be covered under the generic description of 'Pig Iron Products.' They relied on Para 3 of Appendix 28A of the Handbook of Procedures, which states that items with specific rates should not be covered under generic descriptions.The Tribunal considered both arguments and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). They noted that the DEPB benefit should be extended to items not specifically mentioned in the schedule under the appropriate generic description. The Tribunal agreed with the interpretation of the instruction in Appendix 28A, stating that the description 'Pig Iron Product' is not restricted or qualified by any specific terms. They found no reason to interfere with the decision and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
